this woman felt she was innocent too. the prosecutors had pictures that proved their case. they also had eyewitnesses who testified credibly to prove their case.
but she was adamant about her innocence. and the defense was reasonable and could've been believed. she insisted on testifying and i thought it was a good idea. but the jury HATED HER. and so did the judge which is why she got launched at sentencing.
of course, i've represented plenty ppl who were innocent and refused to accept any offer and we went to trial and won. including a first degree murder captured on video w/several eyewitnesses who had identified my client as the shooter. we beat that case - all of the eyewitnesses recanted and the video didn't show the shooter's face.
so i get it.
the analysis is fact specific. it's case specific.
i just disagree that it's ALWAYS worth it to go to trial where one feels they are innocent though the prosecution has compelling evidence that tends to prove guilt.